ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with a prayer for quashing the Resolution issued under Memo No. 1153, Dated 12.02.2018, whereby and where under it has been decided that the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks in their respective category, shall be considered selected in combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (P.T.), 2016 in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 23 of 2016. 3. The fact of the case in narrow campass is that an advertisement dated 17.08.2015 was published for 6th Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (P.T.), 2016 vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2015 which was however cancelled and a fresh advertisement dated 06.10.2016 was published vide Advertisement no. 23 of 2016 for filling up 326 posts. Petitioners applied and appeared in the Preliminary Test held on 18.12.2016 and were declared successful in the results published on 23.02.2017. The results were not published category wise and no cut-off marks was fixed either for the respective categories or in general. The last selected candidate in the said Preliminary Test got 206 marks out of 400 marks. Total 15 times candidates of the advertised posts had been declared successful in the Preliminary Test. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017, amended result had been issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Thereafter, on 25.10.2017, the JPSC issued a Press Communique informing therein regarding cancellation of dates fixed for Mains Examination till further information. Thereafter, through Press Communique dated 09.12.2017, dates for Mains Examination was announced as 29.01.2018 to 07.02.2018. However, again by a Press Communique dated 25.01.2018, the dates for Mains Examination has been cancelled by JPSC. It is case of the petitioners that vide Memo No. 1153, dated 12.02.2018, a Resolution was issued by the State Government by which it has been decided that the qualifying marks in the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination (P.T.), the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks as fixed by Resolution dated 27.11.2012 of the State Government, shall be considered as selected. In pursuant to impugned Notification if fresh result of Preliminary Test is published, the number of candidates selected in the Preliminary Test Examination will be much more than 15 times of the advertised posts, as mentioned in Advertisement No. 23 of 2016. Being aggrieved by issuance of said Notification, petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. In pursuant to impugned Notification if fresh result of Preliminary Test is published, the number of candidates selected in the Preliminary Test Examination will be much more than 15 times of the advertised posts, as mentioned in Advertisement No. 23 of 2016. Being aggrieved by issuance of said Notification, petitioners have knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Memo No. 1153, dated 12.02.2018, issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand is illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that the Government cannot issue a Resolution informing therein that the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks in their respective categories as per advertisement, shall be considered as selected. Learned counsel further submits that the in pursuant to impugned Notification, if fresh result of Preliminary Test is published, the number of candidates selected in the Preliminary Test Examination will be much more than 15 times of the advertised posts, as mentioned in Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 and shall affect the result of Mains Examination. Such kind of alteration in the midst of the on-going selection process amounts to changing the rules of game after its initiation, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The action of the respondents in issuing impugned Notification is against the settled principle of law, as has been held in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that once the process of selection has been initiated, no modification or change in the selection process shall be permitted. The impugned notification is illegal and in teeth of the Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 whereby and where under it has been specifically mentioned that in the Preliminary Test Result, the shortlisted candidates will be 15 times of the advertised post. If the impugned notification is not quashed, it will lead to selection of much more candidates than 15 times of the advertised posts. The action of respondents clearly smacks of malafide and rule of game has been changed only in order to accommodate and favour persons of their choice as the respondents have tried to accommodate those candidates who do not fall within 15 times criteria. The action of respondents clearly smacks of malafide and rule of game has been changed only in order to accommodate and favour persons of their choice as the respondents have tried to accommodate those candidates who do not fall within 15 times criteria. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the very purpose of conducting Preliminary Examination is to screen out non-serious candidates at the first stage itself and action of the respondents in allowing the candidates beyond the 15 times criteria is against the terms of advertisement and defies the purpose of conducting Preliminary Examination. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to learned SC-II submits that the decision of the Government is in larger interest of the candidates and in conformity with the orders and directions passed by this Court. The decision of the State is not going to hamper career of anybody rather decision has been taken in order to safeguard the interest of a large number of students. The petitioners cannot challenge the policy decision of the State taken in larger interest and in conformity with the orders and directions of this Court. Learned Advocate General emphatically argues that the instant policy decision has been taken by the State in view of several anomalies pointed out by the aspirants such as a number of candidates belonging to reserved categories who have secured equal or more marks than that of the selected candidates belonging to the unreserved category, have not been declared successful by the Commission in view of fifteen times limitation. It has further been pointed out that candidates belonging to the reserved category (not availing the benefits of reservation in upper age limit) who all have secured equal or more marks than the cut off marks of unreserved category, have not been given place in the unreserved category. Learned Advocate General further submits that the respondents State after due consultation with the Law Department, took a policy decision vide Departmental Resolution No. 5562, dated 19th April, 2017 that all such candidates belonging to the reserved categories, whose obtained marks are equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of the fifteen times of the short listed unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category), shall be considered successful for the Main Examination. Subsequently, a revised Preliminary Examination result was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission on 11.08.2017 in accordance with the Resolution No. 5562 in compliance with the Judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017 dated 25.07.2017. In view of earlier Resolution, only a particular class was benefited and the down trodden class belonging to reserved category (not availing the benefits of relaxation in upper age limits) in the unreserved category on the basis of merit, fell for consideration before the respondents – State. Learned Advocate General further submits that resolving the disputes and also to march ahead for fixing the date of Mains Examination, provisions were made, which reads as under: “All the candidates of the preliminary examination of the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2016 conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission who have obtained marks equal to or more than the marks fixed by the notification no. 13026, dated 27.11.2012 for their respective categories are to be treated as qualified (selected) for the Main Examination of the said examination.” It has been further argued that the aforementioned provisions neither made any change/amended result of the Preliminary Examination, 2016 published by JPSC nor it was to the disadvantage of any category of the candidates. Learned Advocate General further draws attention of the Court and argues that the Resolution of the State has been accepted by one and all but merely because two persons are aggrieved and have come before this Court claiming it to be arbitrary, the same cannot be struck down. Petitioners have not questioned paragraph-5 of the Resolution dated 12.12.2018, the minimum qualifying marks has also not been questioned. Everything has been done keeping in mind the least representation of the reserved category and as such, the policy decision has been given effect to for larger interest. Justifying the stand of the State, learned Advocate General further submits that action of the State is purely rational and reasonable and cannot be said to be arbitrary. Petitioners have not challenged the order dated 25.07.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017 and as such, they cannot challenge the consequential decision of the State. The impugned Policy decision is consequential decision and has been taken by the State keeping in mind the gross injustice to the general candidates. Petitioners have not challenged the order dated 25.07.2017, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017 and as such, they cannot challenge the consequential decision of the State. The impugned Policy decision is consequential decision and has been taken by the State keeping in mind the gross injustice to the general candidates. The policy decision of the State is not in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and State cannot even think to make any policy decision in utter violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned Advocate General further submits that action of the respondents cannot be compared with changing the rules of games in the midst of selection process rather it is a policy decision of State in compliance of the order and direction of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others]. Said order of this Court has not been challenged before any higher forum and as such, the same has attained finality and the impugned notification is the consequential decision of the State. To buttress his arguments, learned Advocate General has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhatar Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 11 SCC 742 , and submits that the State has already implemented observations and directions of the Court and as such, the grievance of the petitioners is not sustainable and writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Lastly it has been argued that grievance of the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law and this Writ Petition has been brought only to frustrate the JPSC Examination and to prolong it. 6. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jharkhand Public Service Commission submits that the Commission does not frame any rule rather it acts on the rules and policy decision of the State. It is a constitutional body to conduct examination for different purposes. Role of JPSC is limited to the tune of conducting examination and publication of result thereof. Learned counsel further submits that JPSC is bound by the decision of this Court and has already complied the earlier directions of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 1867 of 2017 which has attained finality and as such, the same cannot be challenged. 7. Role of JPSC is limited to the tune of conducting examination and publication of result thereof. Learned counsel further submits that JPSC is bound by the decision of this Court and has already complied the earlier directions of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 1867 of 2017 which has attained finality and as such, the same cannot be challenged. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties and upon perusal of the records, the different affidavits filed by the JPSC as well as the respondent – State, it transpires that no interference is required in the instant writ application. The State has fully acted in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the earlier Judgment of this Court and following the guidelines and observations, have come out with the aforesaid Resolution which is under challenge. Earlier the Court has already directed the State Government as well as JPSC to take steps for publication of amended results in terms of Notification. The issue relates to fate of thousands of aspirants who have appeared in the examination conducted by JPSC. Taking into consideration that the State of Jharkhand, which is a newly carved out State, which constitutes a large population of Tribals and Scheduled Caste, who have to be uplifted by way of framing out policies and also keeping into account the constitutional mandates, the policy decision of the State can only be interfered by the Court if they are arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the cost of repetition, this Court holds that the JPSC being the Selection Committee or the Appointing Authority, has nothing to do with the rules framed by the legislation and as such, JPSC cannot challenge the modified Notification of the State Government. The role of JPSC is limited to the tune of conducting examination and publication of result thereof, Rules have to be framed by the legislature. In the instant case, JPSC has already complied the Resolution of the State Government in compliance of the earlier orders of this Court. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 352 : (1995) 6 SCC 1 (paragraphs-34, 35, 36 and 37) has held as under: “34. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 352 : (1995) 6 SCC 1 (paragraphs-34, 35, 36 and 37) has held as under: “34. The Selection Committee does not even have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection nor can such power be assumed by necessary implication. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, it was observed: (SCC pp. 180-81, para-44) “By necessary inference, there was no such power in the ASRB to add to the required qualifications. If such power is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm.” 35. Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, it was observed that the Selection Committee does not possess any inherent power to lay down its own standards in addition to what is prescribed under the Rules. Both these decision were followed in Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and the limitations of the Selection Committee were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate had to secure at the viva voce. 36. It may be pointed out that rule-making function under Article 309 is legislative and not executive as was laid down by this Court in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana. For this reason also, the Selection Committee or the Selection Board cannot be held to have jurisdiction to lay down any standard or basis for selection as it would amount to legislating a rule of selection.” In Pitta Naveen Kumar and Others V. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 261 , it has been held that “52. The authority of the State to frame rules is not in question. The purport and object for which the said notifications were issued also cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The appellants herein no doubt had a right to be considered but their right to be considered along with other candidates had not been taken away. Both the groups appeared in the preliminary examination. The appellants herein no doubt had a right to be considered but their right to be considered along with other candidates had not been taken away. Both the groups appeared in the preliminary examination. Those who had succeeded in the preliminary examination were, however, allowed to sit in the main examination and the candidature of those had been taken into consideration for the purpose of viva voce test who had passed the written examination.” Indisputably, the Preliminary Examination is not a part of the Mains Examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of General Studies and Mental Ability. Such a test must be held to be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4721 of 2017 [Ranjan Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and vide its order dated 20.11.2017, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution is not inclined to interfere in the policy decision of the State and also in view of the fact that already the process of recruitment has started and preliminary exams are over and as such, no case is made out for interference in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the L.P.A. No. 467 of 2015 [Lakshman Toppo & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.], vide its Judgment dated 23.09.2015, has observed that “no writ of mandamus can be issued upon the State to evolve a new policy by changing the existing policy”, Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Baloji Badhavath and Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , in Para-32 has held as under: “32. Judging of merit may be at several tiers. It may undergo several filtrations. Ultimately, the constitutional scheme is to have the candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the functions attached to the office. Baloji Badhavath and Others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 1 , in Para-32 has held as under: “32. Judging of merit may be at several tiers. It may undergo several filtrations. Ultimately, the constitutional scheme is to have the candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the functions attached to the office. Vacancies are not filled up by way of charity. Emphasis has all along been made, times without number, to select candidates and/or students based upon their merit in each category. The disadvantaged group or the socially backward people may not be able to compete with the open category people but that would not mean that they would not be able to pass the basic minimum criteria laid down therefor.” 9. Having heard the parties, going through records of the case as well as the various Judgments passed by this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out by the petitioners for interference and the writ petition fails. It appears that State has acted in terms of Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as orders passed by this Court and following the guidelines and observations have come out with the impugned notification which needs no interference. The amended Notification of the State of Jharkhand gathers strength from the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and finds support from the earlier order of this Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar & Anr. (Supra) as well as the Division Bench Judgment passed in the case of Lakshman Toppo & Ors. (Supra) and hence requires no interference. Petitioners cannot be aggrieved only because number of students is likely to increase in mains examination after issuance of notification. It is a fact that every candidate who have been selected for mains examination, have to face the same examination. 10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. It appears that already delay has been caused in conducting Mains Examination and further process, and as such, Jharkhand Public Service Commission is directed to take immediate steps for Mains Examination and publication of results thereof. 10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. It appears that already delay has been caused in conducting Mains Examination and further process, and as such, Jharkhand Public Service Commission is directed to take immediate steps for Mains Examination and publication of results thereof. It is made clear that this is a serious issue as it relates to fate of thousands of aspirants who have appeared in the examination conducted by JPSC and as such, it is expected that the State as well as JPSC shall take immediate steps so that after Mains Examination, final result would be published as early as possible.